People talk of a states secedeing because of the federal govt over steps it powers and I agree it does.

Let's face it, this country is made up of two primary demographics. We can go on and on about subtle differences in degrees of difference. We are basically liberal progressive or christian conservative. We can't live together, I absolutely despise your ideas and you despise mine. I think states should be allowed to be one or the other or they can be both and have the endless bickering if they want. Progressive liberals would be happier if they had all progressive liberals in their state and christian conservatives would be happier being with their own. Make the federal gov't 50/50 so nothing ever gets achieved at the federal level and the states have to provide for it's own citizenry and infrastructure. Each state shall pay for a standing millitary run by the federal gov't to protect the boarders and enemy attack. Each state can have it's own trade policies and environmental policies short of over polluting to the point that air is unbreathable and water undrinkable. All the states should secede all at once.

Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

And with the stroke of a pen people 18 to 21 who own a gun became criminals and public enemy #1 having committed no crime and having said nothing. Just like the Jews in Germany during WW2. Must be a weird feeling.

When I hear people crying and whining about their first world problems I think about the universe with everything in it and people in wheelchairs and all of their problems go away.

Secession is unconstitutional.Independents make up a significant voting margin.The government is hardly ever 50/50 Conservative/Liberal. The majority is either liberal, or it is conservative, or it is whatever party exists at the time.Ideologies do not run Washington. Political parties do.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

The Constitution was created by a few men elected by a tiny minority of people living even at the time, not even counting the fact that no one alive ever had a say. I decree that everyone shall give me their money and guns. Why? Because I have a fancy badge and uniform and a piece of paper saying so.

The Constitution was created by a few men elected by a tiny minority of people living even at the time, not even counting the fact that no one alive ever had a say. I decree that everyone shall give me their money and guns. Why? Because I have a fancy badge and uniform and a piece of paper saying so.

It annoys me how much the constitution is brought up in speech and debate when discussing policy. "We should do this because it's constitutional/we shouldn't do this because it's unconstitutional...."

If I go up and speak and make the claim that arguments appealing to the Constitution are simply an appeal to authority, people will go insane.

The Constitution was created by a few men elected by a tiny minority of people living even at the time, not even counting the fact that no one alive ever had a say. I decree that everyone shall give me their money and guns. Why? Because I have a fancy badge and uniform and a piece of paper saying so.

It annoys me how much the constitution is brought up in speech and debate when discussing policy. "We should do this because it's constitutional/we shouldn't do this because it's unconstitutional...."

If I go up and speak and make the claim that arguments appealing to the Constitution are simply an appeal to authority, people will go insane.

Yea, but doesn't the constitution have an important value, because it was designed to limit the powers of the federal government and prevent corruption and mob rule.

All the arguments in favor of the constitution can be found in the Federalist Papers. Or If you prefer you can read the easier to read version, "The Original Arguments" by Glenn beck.

The Constitution was created by a few men elected by a tiny minority of people living even at the time, not even counting the fact that no one alive ever had a say. I decree that everyone shall give me their money and guns. Why? Because I have a fancy badge and uniform and a piece of paper saying so.

It annoys me how much the constitution is brought up in speech and debate when discussing policy. "We should do this because it's constitutional/we shouldn't do this because it's unconstitutional...."

If I go up and speak and make the claim that arguments appealing to the Constitution are simply an appeal to authority, people will go insane.

Yea, but doesn't the constitution have an important value, because it was designed to limit the powers of the federal government and prevent corruption and mob rule.

Certainly it does, and for the most part I agree with what it says, but not everything in it should be taken as the word of God, especially the parts added on afterwards. It's still a set of laws written by man.

All the arguments in favor of the constitution can be found in the Federalist Papers. Or If you prefer you can read the easier to read version, "The Original Arguments" by Glenn beck.

The Constitution was created by a few men elected by a tiny minority of people living even at the time, not even counting the fact that no one alive ever had a say. I decree that everyone shall give me their money and guns. Why? Because I have a fancy badge and uniform and a piece of paper saying so.

It annoys me how much the constitution is brought up in speech and debate when discussing policy. "We should do this because it's constitutional/we shouldn't do this because it's unconstitutional...."

If I go up and speak and make the claim that arguments appealing to the Constitution are simply an appeal to authority, people will go insane.

Yea, but doesn't the constitution have an important value, because it was designed to limit the powers of the federal government and prevent corruption and mob rule.

Certainly it does, and for the most part I agree with what it says, but not everything in it should be taken as the word of God, especially the parts added on afterwards. It's still a set of laws written by man.

If the federal government starts ignoring certain parts of constitution, what's to stop them from ignoring all of it.

If the red states secede then they'd go back into recession and the blue states economies would boom given that blue states pay more federal taxes and get less federal money, and also given that red states make it harder for the federal government top implement good economic polices because conservative economic policies are stupid and hrut the economy evidence by conservative police causing the bubble and crisis.

At 11/20/2011 11:21:04 AM, darkkermit wrote:If the federal government starts ignoring certain parts of constitution, what's to stop them from ignoring all of it.

Whatever stops them now when it ignores certain parts of the constitution I suppose, am I right?

Well, the Supreme Court, however they can be corrupted.

I believe that the people need to keep federal politicians accountable to the constitution and realize its importance. If a candidate shows no regard for the constitution, he or she should be voted down. So its important that the people realize its importance rather then just stating its "just a piece of paper".

The Constitution was created by a few men elected by a tiny minority of people living even at the time, not even counting the fact that no one alive ever had a say. I decree that everyone shall give me their money and guns. Why? Because I have a fancy badge and uniform and a piece of paper saying so.

It annoys me how much the constitution is brought up in speech and debate when discussing policy. "We should do this because it's constitutional/we shouldn't do this because it's unconstitutional...."

If I go up and speak and make the claim that arguments appealing to the Constitution are simply an appeal to authority, people will go insane.

lol what? Its not an appeal to authority because the Constitution IS the authority. The Constitution is the document we refer to to decide what is legal and illegal. An appeal to authority is usually when you refer to an expert and use his say as the final word.

How referring to the law to decide what is lawful is an appeal to authority is beyond me.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

The Constitution was created by a few men elected by a tiny minority of people living even at the time, not even counting the fact that no one alive ever had a say. I decree that everyone shall give me their money and guns. Why? Because I have a fancy badge and uniform and a piece of paper saying so.

Did the people protest this development? Of course not. In what way does this invalidate the Constitution as the supreme law of the country?

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

The Constitution was created by a few men elected by a tiny minority of people living even at the time, not even counting the fact that no one alive ever had a say. I decree that everyone shall give me their money and guns. Why? Because I have a fancy badge and uniform and a piece of paper saying so.

Did the people protest this development? Of course not. In what way does this invalidate the Constitution as the supreme law of the country?

The Constitution was created by a few men elected by a tiny minority of people living even at the time, not even counting the fact that no one alive ever had a say. I decree that everyone shall give me their money and guns. Why? Because I have a fancy badge and uniform and a piece of paper saying so.

Did the people protest this development? Of course not. In what way does this invalidate the Constitution as the supreme law of the country?

The Anti-Federalist Papers.................

That's not what I meant...............

There was no minority that overruled the wishes of the majority.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 11/20/2011 11:32:42 AM, Willoweed wrote:If the red states secede then they'd go back into recession and the blue states economies would boom given that blue states pay more federal taxes and get less federal money, and also given that red states make it harder for the federal government top implement good economic polices because conservative economic policies are stupid and hrut the economy evidence by conservative police causing the bubble and crisis.

I'm all for risking my future on what you call "bad conservative fiscal policies" You can have your liberal fiscal policies. This is exactly why we as a people need to have separate places to live. I think the opposite, yet I am forced to live under what I believe to be hideous job killing liberal fiscal, trade and environmental policies.I respect your position, you believe what you believe and so do I. We can't coexist, it's nothing personal. We would both be better off not having to live under or compromising to each others ideologies. As a conservative I am through compromising on progressive liberal left wing agendas. I respect the view, I just don't want to live under it because I think it's pure evil.

Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

And with the stroke of a pen people 18 to 21 who own a gun became criminals and public enemy #1 having committed no crime and having said nothing. Just like the Jews in Germany during WW2. Must be a weird feeling.

When I hear people crying and whining about their first world problems I think about the universe with everything in it and people in wheelchairs and all of their problems go away.

The Constitution was created by a few men elected by a tiny minority of people living even at the time, not even counting the fact that no one alive ever had a say. I decree that everyone shall give me their money and guns. Why? Because I have a fancy badge and uniform and a piece of paper saying so.

Did the people protest this development? Of course not. In what way does this invalidate the Constitution as the supreme law of the country?

The great 000ike has spoken. From so on, so long as a man does not resist a mugging, it shall be justified!

The Constitution was created by a few men elected by a tiny minority of people living even at the time, not even counting the fact that no one alive ever had a say. I decree that everyone shall give me their money and guns. Why? Because I have a fancy badge and uniform and a piece of paper saying so.

It annoys me how much the constitution is brought up in speech and debate when discussing policy. "We should do this because it's constitutional/we shouldn't do this because it's unconstitutional...."

If I go up and speak and make the claim that arguments appealing to the Constitution are simply an appeal to authority, people will go insane.

lol what? Its not an appeal to authority because the Constitution IS the authority.

what? WHAT?!?! Do you even know what an appeal to authority is? Saying the Constitution is justified or correct because it is the authority is in fact an appeal to authority.

The Constitution is the document we refer to to decide what is legal and illegal. An appeal to authority is usually when you refer to an expert and use his say as the final word.

It can also just as easily be when you refer to a law or ordinance.

How referring to the law to decide what is lawful is an appeal to authority is beyond me.

Okay, so gay marriage should be against the law because gay marriage is against the law. That's a concrete argument by your logic.

At 11/20/2011 11:32:42 AM, Willoweed wrote:If the red states secede then they'd go back into recession and the blue states economies would boom given that blue states pay more federal taxes and get less federal money, and also given that red states make it harder for the federal government top implement good economic polices because conservative economic policies are stupid and hrut the economy evidence by conservative police causing the bubble and crisis.

I'm all for risking my future on what you call "bad conservative fiscal policies" You can have your liberal fiscal policies. This is exactly why we as a people need to have separate places to live. I think the opposite, yet I am forced to live under what I believe to be hideous job killing liberal fiscal, trade and environmental policies.I respect your position, you believe what you believe and so do I. We can't coexist, it's nothing personal. We would both be better off not having to live under or compromising to each others ideologies. As a conservative I am through compromising on progressive liberal left wing agendas. I respect the view, I just don't want to live under it because I think it's pure evil.

The Constitution was created by a few men elected by a tiny minority of people living even at the time, not even counting the fact that no one alive ever had a say. I decree that everyone shall give me their money and guns. Why? Because I have a fancy badge and uniform and a piece of paper saying so.

Did the people protest this development? Of course not. In what way does this invalidate the Constitution as the supreme law of the country?

The great 000ike has spoken. From so on, so long as a man does not resist a mugging, it shall be justified!

Except that the formation of the Union is no where near comparable to a serious "crime." Therefore, if there was significant but quiet opposition, their inaction renders their dissent weightless in discussions 200 years later.

I think theres reasonable evidence to assume the majority of the people were in favor of the formation of the Union. Naming a few nay-sayers does not invalidate the United State's existence.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

The Constitution was created by a few men elected by a tiny minority of people living even at the time, not even counting the fact that no one alive ever had a say. I decree that everyone shall give me their money and guns. Why? Because I have a fancy badge and uniform and a piece of paper saying so.

Did the people protest this development? Of course not. In what way does this invalidate the Constitution as the supreme law of the country?

The great 000ike has spoken. From so on, so long as a man does not resist a mugging, it shall be justified!

Except that the formation of the Union is no where near comparable to a serious "crime." Therefore, if there was significant but quiet opposition, their inaction renders their dissent weightless in discussions 200 years later.

And the genius reason for it not being a serious crime is that people don't think it is? Lol.

I think theres reasonable evidence to assume the majority of the people were in favor of the formation of the Union. Naming a few nay-sayers does not invalidate the United State's existence.

the great Ike has spoken yet again! So long as 6 out of 10 people are for gang raping a nine year old, it shall be justified. Someone should compose a book of your wise sayings.

The Constitution was created by a few men elected by a tiny minority of people living even at the time, not even counting the fact that no one alive ever had a say. I decree that everyone shall give me their money and guns. Why? Because I have a fancy badge and uniform and a piece of paper saying so.

It annoys me how much the constitution is brought up in speech and debate when discussing policy. "We should do this because it's constitutional/we shouldn't do this because it's unconstitutional...."

If I go up and speak and make the claim that arguments appealing to the Constitution are simply an appeal to authority, people will go insane.

lol what? Its not an appeal to authority because the Constitution IS the authority.

what? WHAT?!?! Do you even know what an appeal to authority is? Saying the Constitution is justified or correct because it is the authority is in fact an appeal to authority.

Calm down and listen for Christ's sake. SocialPinko is for secession, and he responded to my argument that secession is unconstitutional, by asserting the constitution to be illegitimate. I said, it is legitimate and the majority was for it.

What I said is that secession is illegal because the Constitution implies so.....now, where's that appeal to authority? As usual you enter strawmanning everything I say.

The Constitution is the document we refer to to decide what is legal and illegal. An appeal to authority is usually when you refer to an expert and use his say as the final word.

It can also just as easily be when you refer to a law or ordinance.

How referring to the law to decide what is lawful is an appeal to authority is beyond me.

Okay, so gay marriage should be against the law because gay marriage is against the law. That's a concrete argument by your logic.

More strawman? No, Gay marriage is illegal, because a document of law says its illegal. Thats not an appeal to authority.

You refer to the law to decide what is lawful. -_-

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

Calm down and listen for Christ's sake. SocialPinko is for secession, and he responded to my argument that secession is unconstitutional, by asserting the constitution to be illegitimate. I said, it is legitimate and the majority was for it.

The majority shall rule! And if anyone is against that, fvck them. They're not even the majority so who cares?

Calm down and listen for Christ's sake. SocialPinko is for secession, and he responded to my argument that secession is unconstitutional, by asserting the constitution to be illegitimate. I said, it is legitimate and the majority was for it.

You're full of it. SocialPinko should have every right to clock you if you met face to face.

What I said is that secession is illegal because the Constitution implies so.....now, where's that appeal to authority? As usual you enter strawmanning everything I say.

You make me hate Jesus

More strawman? No, Gay marriage is illegal, because a document of law says its illegal. Thats not an appeal to authority.

It is if you are looking for a legitimate reason to ban gay marriage, not a legal one

Calm down and listen for Christ's sake. SocialPinko is for secession, and he responded to my argument that secession is unconstitutional, by asserting the constitution to be illegitimate. I said, it is legitimate and the majority was for it.

The majority shall rule! And if anyone is against that, fvck them. They're not even the majority so who cares?

Democracy is applicable in certain situations, but not all. Every time you refer to something YOU KNOW is fallacious, it's probably an inappropriate application of democracy. So stop mentioning rape.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

Calm down and listen for Christ's sake. SocialPinko is for secession, and he responded to my argument that secession is unconstitutional, by asserting the constitution to be illegitimate. I said, it is legitimate and the majority was for it.

The majority shall rule! And if anyone is against that, fvck them. They're not even the majority so who cares?

Democracy is applicable in certain situations, but not all. Every time you refer to something YOU KNOW is fallacious, it's probably an inappropriate application of democracy. So stop mentioning rape.

So democracy is justified sometimes but not other. Please go on to explain your analysis of when democracy is applicable and when it isn't.

Calm down and listen for Christ's sake. SocialPinko is for secession, and he responded to my argument that secession is unconstitutional, by asserting the constitution to be illegitimate. I said, it is legitimate and the majority was for it.

The majority shall rule! And if anyone is against that, fvck them. They're not even the majority so who cares?

Democracy is applicable in certain situations, but not all. Every time you refer to something YOU KNOW is fallacious, it's probably an inappropriate application of democracy. So stop mentioning rape.

I'm interested know in what situations democracy is or is not applicable. Why not rape?